Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 34

Proponents of Proposition 34 just don't get it! Ridding state government of special influence is a worthy goal. BUT PROPOSITION 34 OFFERS A CURE THAT IS WORSE THAN THE DISEASE.

It is very expensive to run for political office in California. Candidates need campaign contributions to inform voters where they stand on the issues. If candidates are unable to raise the money needed to finance a campaign, how will voters be able to make informed choices as to who is the best person to represent them?

Free speech is a cherished right in our nation. WHY SHOULD WE RESTRICT A POLITICAL CANDIDATE'S FREE SPEECH IN THE GUISE OF POLITICAL REFORM?

Proponents of campaign finance reform have the false illusion that Proposition 34 contribution limits will keep special interest politics out of the State Legislature.

They're wrong.

PROPOSITION 34 WON'T WORK. Here's why:

By clamping unworkable limits on normal campaign contributions, candidates will be forced to spend more time—not less—asking wealthy political donors for money.

Incumbent politicians will be begging for money when they should be tending to the public's business. Challengers will be forced to seek campaign funds from any and all sources that want political favors from Sacramento.

PROPOSITION 34 IS A RECIPE FOR A GOVERNMENT MORE BEHOLDEN TO SPECIAL INTERESTS.

The best way to reduce special interest influence is to fully disclose all campaign contributions and let the voters decide which candidate deserves our trust.

Vote No on Proposition 34.

BRETT GRANLUND, Assemblyman
65th Assembly District
BILL MORROW, Senator
38th District